Labour in a Fog.

Press, Volume LIX, Issue 17706, 7 March 1923, Page 8

Labour in a Fog.

Labour is in a pretty state of bewilderment. For years it has been asking the public of this Dominion to vote for "the socialisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange.'' That has been the Alpha and Omega of its philosophy; and some people have been too thoughtless to reflect that this either means something which few are foolish enough to want, or means nothing intelligible at all. And the last case is now admittedly the fact. The annual conference is to be held in Christchurch at Easter, and one of the remits suggests that the objeo-

tive should be changed to "the social"isation of all those means of produc"tion, distribution, and exchange that "are in the best interests of the "masses of the people." But it is news that socialisation of any type is, in the eyes of the Socialists, not in the best interests of the masses of the people. Dnnedin North has either begun to doubt its principles—a mental impossibility—or it does not know what they are. Hamilton asks that "the "wording of the objective be amended "for the purpose of making its pur"pose clearer." And .that, if very purposeful, is quite definite. Hamilton, which ran a Labour man for Parliament, does not know why it supports the platform on which he stood and stands, since it does not know of what that platform is composed. And if we read a little further still we find the Dunedin Operative Bootmakers' Union in the same confusion as the Hamilton L.li.C. It wants the present objective amended or abolished; and "in the "event of its retention or amendment, "they [the 3>uiiedin operative bootmakers] "are for a declaration giving "the exact meaning of the words." North and South, therefore, Labour is in a fog. A few extremists have a sufficiently clear idea of what they want, and intend, if ever the opportunity presents itself. The majority have at best a shadowy notion that the goal is a something called Socialism.

Either that, or labour is beginning to be, as so many insist it always has been, politically hypocritical. Undiluted Socialism is dangerous at the polls. When the public realise what ib means they will have none of it or of the men who preach it; but Socialism well watered may prove both seductive and safe. Labour has either to explain itself to the idealists who suppose themselves attracted, or it has to justify itself to the realists to whom it offers more cake and ale. But cakes and ale have to be paid for, and with seventeen members in the House Labour is beginning to be asked serious questions. Whither is it bound? What other country has found peace and plenty in nationalisation? . If wages come from profits, where do they come from when there are no profits; and if they come from capital, is there not a limit to their increase? Is there any considerable number in the country of whom anyone could say that their sufferings would justify a revolution? Yet if Socialisation did seem so good, would there be any means of bringing it about short of revolution? Labour has come to the end of its blind alley of generalisation. It must now define its aims in terms that mean something, and can be understood by the simplest. ' « . -